fv,/  ADDRESS 

ON 

Vedanta  Philosophy 


BY 

SWAMI  VIVEKANANDA 


“The  Ideal  of  a Universal  Religion” 


DELIVERED  AT 

HARDMAN  HALL 

NEW  YORK 

SUNDAY,  JANUARY  12,  1896 


.3^ 


address 


ON 


Vedanta  Philosophy 

BY 


SWAMl  VIVEKANANDA 

% 

“The  Ideal  of  a Universal  Religion” 


DELIVERED  AT 

HARDMAN  HALL 

NEW  YORK 


SUNDAY,  JANUARY  12,  1896 


Hartrs  & Wright, 
Printers  and  Stationers, 
532  Sixth  Avenie. 


THE  IDEAL  OF  A UNIVERSAL  RELIGION. 


HOW  IT  MUST  EMBRACE  DIFEERENT  TYPES  OF 
MINDS  AND  METHODS. 


WHERESOVER  our  sen.ses  reach,  or  our  iniiids  can  iniagine, 
we  find  action  and  reaction  of  the  two  forces,  one  counter- 
acting the  other,  causing  the  constant  play  of  these  two, 
the  mixed  phenomena  that  we  see  around  us  or  feel  in  our 
mind.  In  the  external  world,  it  is  expressing  itself  in  physical 
matter,  as  attraction  and  repulsion,  centripetal  and  centrifugal. 
In  the  internal  world,  it  explains  the  various  mixed  feelings  of 
our  nature,  the  opposites,  love  and  haired,  good  and  evil.  We 
repel  some  things,  we  attract  some  things.  We  are  attracted  by 
someone,  w'e  are  repelled  by  someone.  Many  times  in  our  lives 
we  find  without  any  reason  whatsoever  we,  as  it  were,  are  attracted 
toward  certain  persons;  at  other  times,  similarly, mysteriously,  we  are 
repelled  bj'  others.  This  is  patent  to  all,  and  the  higher  the  field 
of  action,  the  more  potent,  the  more  remarkable,  are  the  actions  of 
these  forces.  Religion  is  the  highest  plane  of  human  thought, 
and  herein  we  find  that  the  actions  of  these  two  forces  have  been 
most  marked.  The  intensest  love  that  humanit}’  has  ever  known 
has  come  from  religion,  and  the  most  diabolical  hatred  that 
humanity  has  known  has  come  from  religion.  The  noblest  words 
of  peace  that  the  world  has  ever  heard  have  come  from  men  on 
this  plane,  and  the  bitterest  denunciation  that  the  world  has  ever 
known  has  sprung  from  religious  men.  The  higher  the  object,  the 


4 


finer  the  organization,  the  more  remarkable  are  its  actions.  So  we 
find  that  in  religion  these  two  forces  are  very  remarkable  in  their 
actions.  No  other  human  intere.st  has  deluged  the  world  so  much 
in  blood,  as  religion  ; at  the  same  time  nothing  has  built  so  manj* 
hospitals  and  asylums  for  the  poor;  no  other  human  influence  has 
taken  such  care,  not  onh-  of  humanity,  but  of  the  lowest  animals, 
as  religion.  Nothing  makes  us  so  cruel  as  religion,  nothing  makes 
us  so  tender  as  religion.  This  has  been  in  the  past,  and  will  be  in  the 
future.  Yet  from  the  midst  of  this  din  and  turmoil,  and  strife, 
and  struggling,  the  hatred  and  jealousy  of  religions  and  sects,  from 
time  to  time,  arise  potent  voices,  ciying  above  all  this  noise,  mak- 
ing themselves  heard  from  pole  to  pole,  as  it  were,  for  peace,  for 
harmony.  Will  it  ever  come  ? 

Our  subject  for  discussion  is,  is  it  possible  that  there  ever  should 
come  harmonj-  in  this  tremendous  plane  of  struggle  ? The  world 
is  agitated  in  the  latter  part  of  this  century  by  questions  of  har- 
mony; in  society,  various  plans  are  being  proposed,  various  attempts 
are  made  to  carrj-  them  into  practice,  but  we  know  how  diSi- 
cult  that  is.  People  find  it  is  almost  impossible  to  mitigate  the 
furj-  of  the  struggle  of  life,  to  tone  down  the  tremendous  ner\-ous 
tension  that  is  in  man.  Now,  if  it  is  so  difficult  to  bring  harmony 
and  peace  and  love  in  this  little  bit  of  our  life  which  deals  with  the 
physical  plane  of  man,  the  external,  gross,  outward  side,  a thous- 
and times  more  difficult  is  it,  to  bring  peace  and  harmony  in  that 
internal  nature  of  man.  I would  ask  you  for  the  time  being  to 
come  out  of  the  network  of  words  ; we  are  hearing  from  cliildhood 
such  words  as  love  and  peace  and  brotherhood,  and  equality,  and  uni- 
versal brotherhood.  But  they  have  become  words  without  meaning, 
which  we  repeat  like  parrots,  and  it  is  natural  for  us  to  do  so.  We 
cannot  help  it.  Great  gigantic  souls,  who  felt  in  their  hearts  these 
great  ideas,  fir.st  manufactured  these  words,  and  at  that  time 


5 


many  understood  their  meaning.  Later,  ignorant  people  take 
the  words  and  plaj-  upon  them,  and  religion  becomes  a play  in  their 
hands,  mere  frothy  words,  not  to  be  carried  into  practice.  It  Ije- 
comes  ‘ my  father’s  religion,”  “our  nation  s religion,”  ‘‘your  coun- 
try’s religion,”  and  so  forth.  It  becomes  only  a phase  of  patriot- 
ism. To  bring  harmony  in  religion,  therefore,  must  be  most  diffi- 
cult. Yet  we  will  try  to  study  this  phenomenon. 

We  see  that  in  every  religion  there  are  three  parts — I mean  in 
every  great  and  recognized  religion.  First  there  is  the  philosophy, 
the  doctrines,  the  ideals  of  that  religion,  which  embodies  the  goal, 
embodies,  as  it  were,  the  whole  scope  of  that  religion,  lays  before 
its  votaries  and  followers,  the  principle  of  that  religion,  the  way  to 
reach  the  goal ; next  that  philosophy  is  embodied  in  mythology. 
So  the  second  part  is  mythology.  This  mythology’  comes  in  the 
form  of  lives  of  men,  or  of  supernatural  beings,  and  so 
forth.  It  is  the  same  thing  as  philosophy  made  a little  more  con- 
crete, the  abstractions  of  philosophy  become  concretized  in  the 
lives  of  men  and  supernatural  beings.  The  last  portion  is  the  ritual. 
This  is  still  more  concrete,  forms  and  ceremonies,  various  physical 
attitudes,  flowers  and  incense,  and  everj-thing  that  appeals  to  the 
senses.  In  this  consists  the  ritual.  You  will  find  that  everywhere, 
recognized  religions  have  all  these  three.  Some  lay  more  stress  on 
one  side,  some  on  the  other.  We  will  take  the  first  part,  philos- 
ophy. Is  there  any  universal  philosophy  for  the  world  ? Not  yet. 
Each  religion  brings  out  its  own  doctrines,  and  insists  upon  them 
as  being  the  only  real  ones.  And  not  onlj-  does  it  do  that,  but  it 
thinks  that  the  man  who  does  not  believe  them,  must  go  to  some 
horrible  place.  Some  of  them  will  not  stop  there  ; they  will  draw 
the  sword  to  compel  others  to  believe  as  they  do.  This  is  not 
through  wickedness,  but  through  a particular  disease  of  the  human 
brain  called  fanaticism.  They  are  very  sincere,  these  fanatics. 


6 


the  most  sincere  of  human  beings,  but  they  are  not  more  respon- 
sible than  any  other  lunatics  in  the  world. 

This  disease  of  fanaticism  is  one  of  the  most  dangerous  of  all 
diseases.  All  the  wickedness  of  human  nature  is  aroused  bj-  it. 
Anger  is  stirred  up,  nerves  are  strung  high,  and  human  beings 
become  like  tigers.  Is  there  any  similarit}-,  is  there  any  hannon}-, 
any  universal  mythology  ? Certainly  not.  Each  religion  has  its 
own  mydholog}’,  with  only  this  difference,  that  each  one  says  ^'My 
stories  are  not  mythologies.”  For  instance  take  the  question 
home.  I simply  mean  to  illustrate  it;  I do  not  mean  any  criticism 
of  any  religion.  The  Christian  believes  that  God  took  the 

shape  of  a dove,  and  came  down,  and  they  think  this  is 
history,  and  not  mydholog}'.  But  the  Hindu  believes  that  God  is 
manifested  in  the  cow.  Christians  say  that  is  mythology,  and  not 
hLstory;  superstition.  The  Jews  think  that  if  an  image  be  made 
in  the  form  of  a box,  or  a chest,  with  an  angel  on  either  side,  then 
it  is  to  be  placed  in  the  Holy’  of  Holies;  it  is  sacred  to  Jehovah;  but 
if  the  image  be  made  in  the  form  of  a beautiful  man  or  woman,  they 
say  ‘‘This horrible  idol;  break  it  down!”  This  isourunityin  myth- 
ology! If  a man  stands  up  and  say’s  ‘‘My’  prophet  did  such  and  such 
a wonderful  thing,  ’ ’ others  say  that  is  superstition;  but  their  prophet 
did  a still  more  wonderful  thing;  they’  say  that  this  is  historical. 
Nobody  in  the  world  as  far  as  I have  seen,  is  able  to  find  out  the 
fine  distinction  between  history’  and  mythology  in  the  brains  of 
these  gentlemen.  All  these  stories  are  mythologieal,  mixed  up 
with  a little  history. 

Next  come  the  rituals.  One  sect  has  one  particular  form  of 
ritual,  and  thinks  that  is  the  holy  form,  and  that  the  rituals  of 
another  sect  are  simply’  arrant  superstition.  If  one  sect  wor.ships 
a peculiar  sort  of  symbol,  another  sect  says  “Oh,  it’s  horrible.” 
Take  for  instance  the  most  general  form  of  symbol.  The  Phallas 


svinbol  is  certainly  a sexual  syml)ol,  hut  j'raclually  that  part  of  it  was 
forjjotten , aud  it  stands  as  a symbol  of  the  Creator.  Those  nations 
which  have  this  as  tlieir  symlxjl  never  think  of  it  as  the  I’hallas; 
it  is  just  a .synil)ol,  and  there  it  ends.  But  a man  from  another 
race  sees  in  it  nothing  but  the  Phallas,  and  begins  to  condemn  it. 
vet  at  the  same  time  may  be  doing  something  that  to  the  I’liallic 
worshipper  appears  mo.st  horrible.  I will  take  two  points,  the 
Phallas  symbol  and  the  sacrament  of  the  Christians.  To  the 
Christians  the  Phallas  is  horrible,  and  to  the  Hindus  the  Christian 
sacrament  is  horrible.  They  say  that  the  Christian  sacrament,  the 
killing  of  a man  and  eating  his  flesh  and  blood  to  get  the  good 
qualities  of  that  man,  is  cannibalism.  This  is  what  some  of  the 
savage  tribes  do;  if  a man  is  brave  they  kill  him  and  eat  his  heart, 
because  they  think  it  will  give  them  the  qualities  of  bravery  pos- 
sessed by  that  man  Even  such  a devout  Christian  as  Sir  John 
Lubbock  admits  this,  and  says  the  origin  of  this  symbol  is  in  this 
savage  idea.  The  Christians  generally  do  not  admit  this  idea  of  its 
origin;  and  what  it  ma}-  imply  never  comes  to  their  mind.  It 
stands  for  a holy  thing,  and  that  is  all  they  want  to  know.  So 
even  in  rituals  there  is  no  universal  symbol,  which  can  lead  to 
general  recognition.  Where  then  is  this  universalit}-  ? How  is  it 
po.ssible  then  to  have  a universal  form  of  religion  ? That  already 
exists. 

We  all  hear  about  universal  brotherhood,  and  how  societies 
stand  up  and  want  to  preach  this.  I remember  an  old  story.  In 
India,  wine  drinking  is  considered  very  horrible.  There  were  two 
brothers  who  wanted  to  drink  some  wine,  secretly,  in  the  night, 
and  their  uncle,  who  was  a very  strongly  old-fashioned  man.  was 
sleeping  in  a room  quite  near  where  they  were  going  to  have  their 
drinking.  So  before  thej-  began  to  drink,  each  one  said  to  the 
other,  ‘-Silence  ! uncle  will  wake  up.  ’ As  they  went  on  drinking. 


they  began  to  shout  to  each  other,  “Silence  ! uncle  will  wake  up.’’ 
So,  as  the  shouting  increased,  uncle  woke  up,  and  he  came  into  the 
room,  and  found  out  the  whole  thing.  Universal  brotherhood. 
“ we  are  all  equal,  therefore  make  a sect.’’  As  soon  as  you  make  a 
sect  you  protest  against  equality,  and  thus  it  is  no  more.  INIoham- 
medans  say  universal  brotherhood,  but  what  comes  in  reality? 
Nobody  who  is  not  a Mohammedan  will  be  admitted  ; he  will  have 
his  throat  cut.  The  Christians  say  universal  brotherhood  ; but 
anyone  who  is  not  a Christian  must  go  to  that  place  and  be  eter- 
nally barbecued. 

So  we  are  being  carried  on  in  this  world  after  universal  brother- 
hood and  equality,  universal  equality  of  property',  aiid  thought,  and 
everything.  And  I would  simply  ask  j'ou  to  look  askance,  and  be 
a little  reticent,  and  take  a little  care  of  yourselves  when  you  hear 
such  talk  in  this  world  ; behind  it  man^'  times  comes  intensest 
selfishness.  “ In  the  winter  sometimes  a cloud  comes  ; it  roars  and 
roars,  but  it  does  not  rain  ; but  in  the  rainy  season  the  clouds  speak 
not,  but  deluge  the  world  with  water.  ’ ’ So  those  who  are  really 
workers,  and  really  feel  the  universal  brotherhood  of  man,  do  not 
talk  much,  do  not  make  little  sects  for  universal  brotherhood,  but 
their  acts,  their  whole  body,  their  posture,  their  movements,  their 
walk,  eating,  drinking,  their  whole  life,  show  that  brotherhood  for 
mankhid,  that  love  and  sympathy  for  all.  They  do  not  speak,  they 
do.  This  world  is  getting  full  of  blu.steriug  talk.  We  want  a little 
more  work,  and  less  talk. 

So  far  we  see  that  it  is  hard  to  find  any  universal  ideas  in  this,  and 
yet  we  know  the}'  exist.  We  are  all  human  beings,  but  are  we  all 
equal?  Certainly  not.  Who  says  we  are  ecjual  ? Only  the  man  who 
is  a lunatic  ; he  alone  can  say  we  are  all  equal.  Are  we  all  equal  in 
our  brains,  in  our  powers,  in  our  bodies  ? One  man  is  stronger  than 
another,  one  man  has  more  brain  power  than  another.  If  we  are  all 


9 


equal,  wli}'  is  this  iiicajualily?  W’ho  made  it?  //V.  Hecause 
we  have  more  or  less  i>ovvers,  more  brain,  more  jdiysical  streiij'th  ; 
it  must  make  a dilFerence.  Yet  we  know  that  the  doctrine  ajjpeals 
to  us.  Take  another  case.  We  are  all  human  beinj's  here,  but 
there  are  some  men,  and  some  women.  Here  is  a black  man,  there 
a white  man,  but  all  are  men,  all  humanity.  Various  faces  ; I see 
no  two  faces  here  the  same,  yet  we  are  all  human  beings.  Where 
is  this  humanity  ? I cannot  find  it.  When  I trj-  to  analyze  it,  I do 
not  find  where  it  is.  Either  I find  a man  or  a woman  ; either  dark 
or  fair  ; and  among  all  these  faces,  that  abstract  humanity  which  is 
the  common  thing,  I do  not  find  when  I trt-  to  grasp,  to  sense,  and 
actualize  it,  and  think  of  it.  It  is  beyond  the  senses  ; it  is  beyond 
thought,  beyond  the  mind.  Yet  I know,  and  am  certain  it  is  there. 
If  I am  certain  of  anything  here,  it  is  this  humaniU-  which  is  a 
common  quality  among  all.  And  yet  I cannot  find  it.  This  hu- 
manity is  what  you  call  God.  “ In  Him  we  live  and  move  and 
have  our  being.”  In  Him  and  through  Him  we  have  our  being. 
It  is  through  this  I see  you  as  a man  or  a woman,  yet,  when  I waiit 
to  catch  or  formulate  it,  it  is  nowhere,  because  it  is  beyond  the 
.senses,  and  yet  we  know  that  in  it,  and  through  it,  everything  ex- 
ists. So  with  this  universal  one-ness  and  sympathy,  this  universal 
religion  which  runs  through  all  these  various  religions  as  God  ; it 
must  and  does  exist  through  eternity.  “ I am  the  thread  that  runs 
through  all  these  pearls.”  and  each  pearl  is  one  of  these  sects. 
They  are  all  the  different  pearls,  but  the  Lord  is  the  thread  that 
runs  through  all  of  them,  only  the  majority  of  mankind  are  entirely 
unconscious  of  it ; yet  they  are  working  in  it,  and  through  it  ; not 
a moment  can  they  stand  outside  it,  because  all  work  is  only  pos- 
sible through  and  in  it ; yet  we  cannot  formulate  it,  it  is  God  Him- 
self. 


16 


Unity  in  variety  is  the  plan  of  the  universe.  Just  as  we  are  all 
men,  yet  we  are  all  separate.  As  humanity  I am  one  with  you.  and 
as  Mr.  So-and-so  I am  different  from  you.  As  a man  you  are  >sep- 
arate  from  the  woman;  as  a human  being  you  are  one  with  the 
woman.  As  a man  you  are  separate  from  the  animal,  but  as  a liv- 
ing being,  the  man,  the  woman,  the  animal,  the  plant,  are  all  one, 
and  as  existence,  you  are  one  with  the  whole  universe.  That  exist- 
ence is  God,  the  ultimate  Unity  in  this  universe.  In  Him  we  are 
all  one.  At  the  same  time,  in  manifestation,  these  differences  must 
always  remain.  In  our  work,  in  our  energies  that  are  being  mani- 
fested outside,  these  differences  must  remain  always.  We  find 
then  that  if  by  the  idea  of  a universal  religion  is  meant  one  set  of 
doctrines  should  be  believed  by  all  mankind,  it  is  impossible,  it  can 
never  be,  any  more  than  there  will  be  a time  when  all  faces  will  be 
the  same.  Again  if  we  expect  that  there  will  be  one  universal  my. 
thology,  that  is  also  impossible,  it  cannot  be.  Neither  can  there  be 
one  universal  ritual.  This  cannot  be.  When  that  time  will  come, 
this  world  will  be  destroyed,  because  variety  is  the  first  principle 
of  life.  What  makes  us  formed  beings?  Differentiation.  Perfect 
balance  will  be  destruction.  Suppose  the  amount  of  heat  in  this 
room,  whose  tendency  is  perfect  diffusion,  gets  that  diffusion,  that 
heat  will  cease  to  be.  What  makes  motion  in  this  universe?  Lost 
balance.  That  is  all.  That  sort  of  unity  can  only  come  when  this 
universe  will  be  destroyed,  but  in  the  world  such  a thing  is  impo.s- 
sible.  Not  only  so,  it  is  dangerous.  We  must  not  seek  that  all 
of  us  should  think  alike.  There  would  then  be  no  thought  to  think. 
We  would  be  all  alike,  like  I-Cgyptian  mummies  in  a museum,  look- 
ing at  each  other  without  thought  to  think.  It  is  this  difference  of 
thought,  this  differentiation,  losing  of  the  balance  of  thought, 
which  is  the  very  .soul  of  our  progre.ss,  the  soul  of  thought.  This 
must  always  be. 


What  then  do  I mean  hy  the  itleal  of  a universal  relijfion  ? I do 
not  mean  a universal  i)hilosoj)hy,  or  a universiil  mylholofjy,  or  a 
universal  ritual,  but  I mean  that  this  world  must  jjo  on  wheel  with- 
in wheel,  this  intricate  mass  of  jnachinery,  most  intricate,  most 
wonderful.  What  can  we  do?  We  can  make  it  run  .smoothly,  we 
can  les.sen  the  friction,  we  can  grease  the  wheels,  as  it  were.  Ily 
what  ? By  recognizing  variation.  J u.st  as  we  have  recognized  unity, 
by  our  very  nature,  so  we  must  also  recognize  variation.  W’e  must 
learn  that  truth  may  be  expressed  in  a hundred  thousand  ways,  and 
each  one  vet  be  true.  We  must  learn  that  the  same  thing  can  be 
viewed  from  a hundred  different  standpoints,  and  yet  be  the  same 
thing.  Take  for  instance  the  sun.  Suppose  a man  standing  on  the 
earth  looks  at  the  .sun  when  it  rises  in  the  morning;  he  sees  a big 
ball.  Suppase  he  starts  toward  the  .sun  and  takes  a camera  with 
him,  taking  photographs  at  every  stage  of  his  journey,  at  every 
thousand  miles  he  takes  a fresh  photograph,  until  he  reaches  the 
sun.  ,\t  each  .stage,  each  photograph  was  different  from  the  other 
photographs:  in  fact  when  he  gets  back,  he  brings  with  him  .so  many 
thou.sands  of  photographs  of  so  many  different  .suns,  as  it  were,  and 
yet  we  know  it  was  the  same  sun  photographed  bj'  the  man  at 
every  stage  of  his  progress.  Even  so  with  the  Lord.  Greater  or 
less,  tlirough  high  philosophy  or  low,  through  the  highest  or  lowest 
doctrines,  through  the  most  refined  mythology  or  the  most  gross, 
through  the  most  refined  ritualism  or  the  grossest,  everj-  sect,  ever5' 
soul,  every  nation,  every  religion,  conscipusl}'  or  unconsciously,  is 
struggling  upward,  Godward,  and  each  vision  is  that  of  Him  and  of 
none  else.  Suppose  we  each  one  of  us  go  with  a particular  pot  in 
our  hand  to  fetch  water  from  a lake.  Suppose  one  has  a cup, 
another  a jar.  another  a bigger  jar,  and  so  forth,  and  we  all  fill 
them.  When  we  take  them  up,  the  water  in  each  case  has  got  into 
the  fonn  of  the  vessel.  He  who  brought  the  cup.  has  water  in  the 


12 


form  of  a cup,  he  who  brought  the  jar,  his  water  is  in  the  shape  of 
ajar,  and  so  forth;  but,  in  every  case,  water,  and  nothing  but  water 
is  in  the  vessel.  So,  in  the  case  of  religion,  our  minds  are  like 
these  little  pots,  and  each  one  of  us  is  seeing  God.  God  is  like 
that  water  filling  these  different  vessels,  and  in  each  vessel,  the  vis- 
ion of  God  conies  in  the  form  of  the  vessel.  Yet  He  is  One.  He 
is  God  in  every  case.  This  is  the  recognition  that  we  can  get. 

So  far  it  is  all  right  theoretically,  l)ut  is  there  any  way  of  prac- 
tically working  it  out?  We  find  that  this  recognition  that  all 
the.se  various  views  are  true,  has  been  very,  very  old.  Hundreds  of 
attempts  have  been  made  in  India,  in  Alexandria,  in  Europe,  in 
China,  in  Japan,  in  Thibet,  latest  in  America,  in  various  countries 
attempts  have  been  made  to  formulate  a harmonious  religious 
creed  to  make  all  come  together  in  love,  instead  of  fighting. 
And  yet  the}'  have  all  failed.  Because  there  was  no  practical 
plan.  They  admitted  that  all  these  religions  were  right,  but  they 
had  no  practical  way  of  bringing  them  together,  and  yet  keeping 
that  individuality.  That  ])lan  alone  will  be  practical,  which  does 
not  destroy  the  individuality  of  any  man  in  religion,  and  at  the 
same  time  shows  him  a point  of  union.  But  so  far,  all  these  plans 
that  have  been  tried,  while  proposing  to  take  in  all  these  various 
views,  have  in  practice,  tried  to  bring  them  down  to  a few  doctrines, 
and  so'  have  produced  merely  a fre.sli  sect,  fighting,  struggling 
and  pushing. 

I have  also  my  little  plan.  1 do  not  know  whether  it  will  work 
or  not  and  I want  to  present  it  to  you  for  di.scussion.  What  is  my 
plan?  In  the  fir.st  place  I would  ask  mankind  to  recognize  this 
ma.xini  — ‘‘  Do  not  destroy.  ’’  Iconoclastic  reformers  do  no  good  to 
the  world.  Break  not  anything  down,  but  build.  Help,  if  you  can, 
if  you  cannot  fold  your  hands  and  stand  bj'.  and  see  things  go  on. 
Do  not  injure,  if  you  cannot  helj).  Therefore  destroy  not,  sa}'  not 


13 


a word  against  any  man’s  convictions  so  far  as  they  are  sincere- 
Secondly,  take  man  where  he  stands,  and  from  thence  give  him  a 
lift.  If  the  theorj’  be  right,  that  God  is  the  centre,  and  each  one 
of  us  individuals  is  moving  along  one  of  the  lines  of  the  radii,  it 
is  then  perfectly  true  that  each  one  of  us  musl  come  to  the  centre, 
and  at  the  centre,  where  all  these  radii  meet,  all  differences  will 
cease,  but  until  we  have  come  there,  differences  mu.st  be.  .-Xnd 
yet  all  these  radii  converge  to  the  same  centre.  One  of  us  is  by 
nature  travelling  in  one  of  these  lines,  and  another  in  another,  ami 
■SO  we  only  want  a pn.sh  along  the  line  we  are  in,  and  we  will  come 
to  the  centre,  because  “all  roads  lead  to  Rome.  ” Therefore,  de- 
stroy not.  Kach  one  of  us  is  naturally  developing  according  to 
our  own  nature;  each  nature  will  come  to  the  highest  truth,  and 
men  must  teach  themselves.  What  can  you  and  I do?  Do  you 
think  you  can  teach  even  a child  ? You  cannot.  A child  teaches 
himself.  Your  duty  is  to  remove  the  obstacles?.  plant  grows. 
Do  you  make  the  plant  grow?  Yonr  duty  is  to  put  a hedge  round, 
and  see  that  no  animal  eats  up  the  plant,  and  there  it  ends.  The 
jilant  must  grow  it.self.  So  in  the  spiritual  growth  of  every  man. 
None  can  teach  you  ; none  can  make  you  spiritual  ; you  have  to 
teach  j-ourselves  ; the  growth  mu.st  come  from  inside,  out. 

What  can  an  external  teacher  do?  lie  can  remove  the 
obstructions  a little,  and  there  his  duty  ends.  Therefore  help, 
if  you  can,  but  do  not  destroy.  Give  up  all  such  ideas  that 
you  can  make  men  spiritual.  It  is  impossible.  There  is  no 
other  teacher  but  your  own  soul.  Admit  this.  What  conies?  In 
society  we  see  so  many  various  natures  of  mankind.  There  are 
thousands  and  thousands  of  varieties  of  minds  and  inclinations. 
A practical  generalization  will  be  impossible,  but  for  my  purpose  I 
have  .sufficiently  characterized  them  into  four.  First  the  active 
workingman;  he  wants  work;  tremendous  energ\- in  his  muscles 


14 


and  his  nerves.  He  likes  to  work,  build  hospitals,  do  charitable 
works,  make  streets,  and  do  all  sorts  of  work,  planning,  organiz- 
ing; an  active  man.  There  is  then  the  emotional  man,  who  loves 
the  sublime  and  the  beautiful  to  an  excessive  degree.  He  wants  to 
think  of  the  beautiful,  the  mild  part  of  nature.  Love,  and  the  God 
of  love,  and  all  these  things  he  likes.  He  loves  with  his  whole 
heart  those  great  souls  of  ancient  times,  the  prophets  of  religions, 
the  incarnations  of  God  on  earth;  he  does  not  care  whether  rea.son 
can  prove  that  Christ  existed,  or  Buddha  existed;  he  does  not  care  for 
the  exact  date  when  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  was  preached,  or 
the  exact  moment  of  Christ’s  birth;  what  he  cares  for  is  His  per- 
sonality, the  figure  before  him.  He  does  not  even  care  whether  it 
can  be  proved  that  such-and-such  men  existed  or  not.  Such  is  his 
ideal.  Such  a nature  as  I have  pictured,  is  the  lover;  he  is  the 
emotional  man.  Then  again  there  is  the  mystic  man,  whose  mind 
wants  to  analyze  its  own  self,  undenstand  the  workings  of  the 
human  mind,  the  psycholog}’,  what  are  the  forces  that  are  working 
inside,  how  to  manipulate  and  know  and  get  control  over  them. 
This  is  the  mystical  mind.  There  is  then  the  philosopher,  who 
wants  to  weigh  everything,  and  use  his  intellect  even  beyond  the 
philosophy. 

Now  a religion  to  satisfy  the  largest  portion  of  mankind,  must 
be  able  to  supply  food  for  all  the.se  various  minds,  and  this  is  want- 
ing, the  existing  sects  are  all  one-sided.  You  go  to  one  .sect. 
Suppose  they  preach  love  and  emotion.  They  begin  to  sing  and 
weep,  and  they  preach  love  and  all  sorts  of  good  things  in  life,  but 
as  soon  as  you  say  “My  friend,  that  is  all  right,  but  1 want  some- 
thing .stronger  than  that;  give  me  an  ounce  of  reason,  a little  phil- 
osophy; I want  to  handle  things  more  gradually.’’  “Get  out,’’ 
they  say,  and  they  not  only  .say  get  out,  but  want  to  send  you  to 
the  other  ]>lace,  if  they  can.  The  result  is.  that  .sect  can  only  help 


people  of  an  emotional  iiiiiul,  and  none  else;  others,  they  not  only 
do  not  help,  but  try  to  destroy,  and  the  most  wicked  part  of  the 
whole  thinj?  is,  that  they  will  not  only  not  help  others,  but  do  not 
believe  that  they  are  sincere,  and  the  sooner  they  get  out  the 
better.  There  is  the  failing  of  the  whole  thing.  Sui>po.se  you  are 
in  a sect  of  philosophers,  talking  of  the  mystic  wisdom  of  India  and 
the  Kast,  and  all  these  big  jxsychological  terms  fd'ty  syllables  long, 
and  suppose  a man  like  me,  a common  everj'-day  m.an,  goes  there 
and  says  “Can  you  tell  me  anything  to  make  me  spiritual  ? ” The 
first  thing  they  do  is  to  smile  and  Siiy  “Oh  you  are  too  far  below  us 
in  reason,  to  exist ! What  do  you  know  of  spirituality  ? ” They 
are  high  up  philosophers.  They  show  you  the  door.  Then  there 
are  the  mystical  sects,  who  are  talking  all  sorts  of  things  about 
different  planes  of  existence,  different  states  of  mind,  and  what  the 
power  of  the  mind  can  do,  and  if  you  are  an  ordinary  man  and  say 
“Show  me  anything  good  that  I can  do;  I am  not  given  much  to 
that  sort  of  speculation;  can  you  give  me  anj-thing  that  fits  me?’’ 
The}’  will  smile,  and  say  “Look  at  that  fool:  he  is  nobody;  the 
only  thing  we  advise  you  to  do  is  to  commit  suicide;  your  existence 
is  for  nothing.”  And  this  is  going  on  in  the  world.  1 would  like 
to  get  extreme  exponents  of  all  these  different  sects,  and  shut  them 
up  in  a room,  and  photograph  that  beautiful  derisive  smile  of 
theirs. 

This  is  the  existing  human  nature,  the  existing  condition  of 
things.  What  I want  to  propose,  is  a religion  that  will  be  equally 
acceptable  to  all  minds,  it  must  be  equally  philosophic,  equally 
emotional,  equally  mystic,  and  equally  active.  If  }*our  professors 
from  the  colleges  come,  your  scientific  men  and  physicists,  they 
will  want  reason.  Let  them  have  it  as  much  as  they  want:  There 

will  be  a point  where  they  will  all  give  up,  and  say  go  not  beyond 
this.  If  they  say  give  up  this  thing,  it  is  superstitious,  these  ideas 


i6 


of  God  and  salvation,  are  superstition,  I say  ‘Mr.  Philosopher, 
this  is  a bigger  superstition,  this  body.  Give  it  up,  don’t  go  home 
to  dinner  or  your  philosophic  chair.  Give  up  the  body,  and  if  you 
cannot,  cry  quarter,  and  sit  down  there.”  In  religion  there  must 
be  that  side,  and  we  must  be  able  to  show  how  to  realize  the  phil- 
osophy which  teaches  that  this  world  is  one,  that  there  is  but  one 
existence  in  the  universe.  Similarly,  if  the  mystic  comes,  we 
must  be  ready  to  show  him  the  science  of  mental  analysis,  practi- 
cally demonstrate  it  before  him.  Here  you  are,  come,  learn, 
nothing  is  “done  in  a corner.’’  And  if  emotional  people  come, 
we  will  sit  with  them  and  weep  and  weep  in  the  name  of  the  Lord; 
we  will  “drink  the  cup  of  love  and  become  mad.’’  If  the  worker 
comes  we  will  go  and  work  with  him,  work  with  all  the  energj- 
that  he  has.  And  this  will  be  the  ideal  of  the  nearest  approach  to 
a universal  religion.  Would  to  God  that  all  men  were  so  harmoni- 
ously blended,  that  in  their  minds,  all  these  various  elements  of 
philosophy,  of  mysticism,  of  emotion,  and  work  were  present,  and 
yet  that  is  the  ideal,  my  ideal  of  a man.  Ever}-one  who  has  only 
one  or  two  of  these,  I call  ‘ ‘one-sided”  and  that  is  why  this  world 
is  almost  fidl  of  these  ‘‘one-sided”  men,  with  only  one  road  in 
which  they  can  move,  and  anything  else  is  dangerous  and  horrible 
to  them.  The  attempt  to  help  mankind  to  become  wonderfully 
balanced,  in  these  four  directions,  is  my  ideal  of  religion.  And 
this  religion  is  what  we,  in  India,  call  “Yoga, ’’union  between  God 
and  man,  union  between  the  lower  self  and  the  higher  self.  To  the 
worker,  it  is  union  between  men  and  the  whole  of  humanity.  To 
the  mystic  between  his  lower  and  higher  self.  To  the  lover,  union 
between  him  and  the  God  of  love,  and  to  the  philosopher,  it  is 
union  of  all  existence.  This  is  what  is  meant  by  Yoga.  This  is 
a Sanscrit  term,  and  these  four  divisions  in  Sanskrit  have  different 
names.  The  man  who  seeks  after  this  union  is  called  Yogi.  The 


17 


worker  is  called  Kaniia  Yogi,  He  who  seeks  it  through  love  is  called 
Bhakti  Yogi;  he  who  seeks  it  through  mysticism  is  called  Raja 
Yogi,  and  he  who  seeks  it  through  philosophy  is  called  Guana 
Yogi.  So  this  word  Yoga  comprises  them  all. 

Now  first  of  all  I will  take  up  Raja  Yoga.  What  is  this  Raja 
Yoga,  controlling  the  mind  ? In  this  country  you  are  associating 
all  sorts  of  hobgoblins  with  the  word  Yoga.  I am  afraid  therefore, 
I must  start  by  telling  you  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  such 
things.  No  one  of  these  Yogas,  gives  up  reason,  no  one  of  them 
asks  you  to  deliver  your  reason,  hocKlwiuke<l,  into  the  hands  of 
priests,  of  any  type  whatever.  No  one  of  them  asks  that  you  give 
vour  allegiance  to  any  superhuman  messenger.  Each  one  of  them 
tells  you  to  to  your  reason,  to  hold  fast  to  reason.  We  find 
in  all  beings  three  sorts  of  instruments  of  knowledge.  The  first  is 
the  instinct,  which  you  find  mostly  in  animals,  and  to  some  degree 
in  man  the  lowest  instrument  of  knowledge.  What  is  the  second 
instrument  of-knowledge  ? Reasoning.  You  find  that  mosth-  in 
men.  Now  in  the  first  place  instinct  is  insufficient ; as  you  see  in 
the  animals,  the  sphere  of  their  action  is  very  limited,  and  within 
that  limit,  instinct  acts.  When  it  comes  in  man.  it  is  developed 
into  reason.  The  sphere  has  become  enlarged.  Yet  it  is  still  verj- 
insufficient.  It  can  get  only  a little  way  and  then  it  stops.  There 
it  tells  us,  it  cannot  go  any  further,  and  if  3'ou  want  to  push  it  an\- 
further,  the  result  is  helpless  confusion,  reason  itself  becomes  un- 
reasonable. The  whole  of  logic  becomes  an  argument  in  a circle. 
Take  for  instance  the  very  basis  of  our  perception,  matter  and  force. 
What  is  matter  ? That  which  is  acted  upon  by  force  ; and  force  ? 
that  which  acts  upon  matter.  You  see  the  complication,  what  the 
logicians  call  se;-saw,  one  idea  depending  on  the  other,  and  that 
also  depending  on  this  one.  You  find  a tremendous  wall  before 
the  reason,  be\’ond  which  reasoning  cannot  go,  \’et  it  wants  to  get 


i8 


into  the  infinite  beyond.  This  world  of  ours,  this  uni\-erse  which 
our  senses  feel,  or  our  mind  thinks  of,  is  but  one  bit  of  the  infinite, 
which  has  been  projected  into  the  plane  of  consciousness,  and  with- 
in that  little  limit,  which  has  been  caught  in  the  network  of  con- 
sciousness, works  our  reason,  and  not  beyond.  Therefore  there 
must  be  some  other  instrument  to  take  us  beyond,  and  that  instru- 
ment is  called  inspiration.  So  instinct,  reason  and  inspiration  are 
the  three  instruments  of  knowledge.  Instinct  belongs  to  the  ani- 
mals, reason  to  men,  and  inspiration  to  God-men.  But  in  all  human 
beings  are  the  germs  of  these  three  instruments  of  knowledge. 
They  have  got  to  be  evolved,  but  the}-  must  be  there.  This  must 
be  remembered,  that  one  is  the  development  of  the  other,  and 
therefore  does  not  contradict  the  other.  It  is  reason  that  develops 
into  imspiration,  and  therefore  inspiration  does  not  contradict  rea- 
son, but  fulfils.  Things  which  reason  cannot  get.  are  brought  to 
light  by  inspiration,  but  do  not  contradict  reason.  The  old  man 
does  not  contradict  the  child,  but  fulfils  the  child.  Therefore  j'ou 
must  always  remember  this,  that  the  great  danger  lies  here.  Manv 
times  instinct  is  presented  before  the  world  as  inspiration,  and  then 
come  all  the  spurious  claims.  A fool  or  semi-lunatic  thinks  the 
jargons  going  on  in  his  brain  are  inspirations,  and  he  wants  men  to 
follow  him.  The  most  contradictor}-,  irrational,  nonsense  has  been 
preached'in  the  world,  simpl}-  the  instinctive  jargon  of  lunatic 
brains,  trying  to  pass  for  inspiration. 

The  first  test  must  be,  that  it  must  not  contradict  reason.  So 
you  see  this  is  the  basis  of  all  these  Yogas.  We  take  the  Raja  Yoga, 
the  psychological  Yoga,  the  psychological  way  to  union.  It  is  a 
vast  subject,  and  I will  only  point  out  to  you  the  central  idea  of 
this  Yoga.  There  is  one  method  in  all  knowledge  that  we  have. 
From  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  from  the  smallest  worm  to  the 
highest  Yogi,  they  have  to  use  the  same  method,  and  that  method 


is  called  concentration.  The  chemist  who  is  working  in  his  labor- 
atory has  concentrated  all  the  powers  of  his  mind,  and  brought 
them  into  one  focus,  and  thrown  them  on  the  elements,  and  they 
stand  analyzed,  and  his  knowledge  comes.  The  astronomer  has 
concentrated  the  thoughts  of  his  mind,  and  brought  them  into  one 
focus  aud  he  throws  them  through  his  telescope,  and  stars,  and  sys- 
tems roll  forward,  and  give  up  their  mysteries  to  him.  So  in  every 
case.  The  Professor  in  his  chair,  the  student  with  his  book,  ever}- 
man  who  is  working.  You  are  hearing  me.  and  if  my  words  in- 
terest you,  your  mind  will  be  concentrated,  and  suppose  a clock 
strikes  or  something  happens,  you  will  not  hear  it  on  account  of 
this,  and  the  more  you  are  able  to  concentrate  your  mind  the  better 
you  will  understand  me,  and  the  more  I concentrate  my  love  and 
powers,  the  better  I will  be  able  to  tell  you  what  I want  to  convey, 
and  the  more  this  power  of  concentration  is  in  the  mind  the  more 
knowledge  it  can  get,  because  this  is  the  one  and  only  method  of 
knowledge.  Down  to  the  lowest  shoeblack,  if  he  has  more  concen- 
tration he  will  black  shoes  better,  the  cook  will  cook  a meal  better. 
In  making  money  or  in  worshipping  God,  or  doing  anything,  the 
stronger  the  power  of  concentration,  the  better  will  that  work  be. 
This  is  the  one  call,  the  one  knock  which  opens  the  gates  of  nature, 
and  lets  out  the  floods  of  light.  This  is  the  only  key,  the  one 
power,  concentration.  This  system  of  Raja  Yoga  deals  almost  ex- 
clusively -with  this.  In  the  present  state  of  our  body  we  are  so 
much  distracted,  the  mind  is  frittering  away  its  energies  upon  a 
hundred  sorts  of  things.  As  soon  as  I try  to  calm  my  thoughts, 
and  concentrate  my  mind  upon  one  object  of  knowledge,  thousands 
of  thoughts  rush  into  the  brain,  thousands  of  thoughts  rush  into 
the  mind  and  disturb  it.  How  to  check  that,  bring  it  under  con- 
trol, this  is  the  whole  subject  of  study  in  Raja  Yoga. 


20 


We  take  the  next.  Karma  Yoga,  that  of  work.  It  is  e\-ident  in 
society  how  there  are  so  many  persons  wdio  like  some  sort  of  activ- 
ity, whose  mind  cannot  be  concentrated  upon  the  plane  of  thought 
alone,  and  who  have  but  one  idea,  concretised  in  work,  visible  and 
tangible.  Yet  there  must  be  a science  of  that  too.  Each  one  of  us 
is  working,  but  the  majority  of  us  fritter  away  the  greater  portion 
of  our  energies  because  we  do  not  know  the  secret  of  work.  Where  to 
work  and  how  to  work  is  the  secret,  how  to  employ  the  most  part  of 
our  energies,  how  to  bring  them  all  to  bear  on  the  work  that  is  be- 
fore us,  and  along  with  that  conies  the  other  great  objection  with 
all  work;  work  must  cause  pain,  and  all  miseiy  and  pain  come 
from  attachment.  I want  to  do  work,  I want  to  do  good  to  a human 
being,  and  it  is  90  to  i that  that  human  being  that  I have  helped, 
will  be  ungrateful,  and  go  against  me,  and  the  result  is  pain.  That 
^will  deter  mankind  from  working,  and  spoils  a good  portion  of  their 
work  and  of  the  energy  of  mankind,  this  fear  and  this  iniserj-. 
Karma  Yoga  teaches  how  to  work  for  work’s  sake,  unattached, 
without  caring  who  is  helped,  and  what  for.  The  Karma  Yogi 
works  through  his  own  nature,  because  it  is  good  to  work,  and  has 
no  object  beyond  that.  His  station  in  this  world  is  that  of  a giver, 
and  he  never  receives.  He  knovvs  that  he  is  giving,  and  does  not 
ask  anything  back,  and  therefore  he  eludes  the  grasp  of  misery. 
The  gr£sp  of  pain  which  conies,  is  the  reaction  from  “attachment.  ’’ 
There  is  then  Bhakti  Yoga,  for  the  emotional  nature,  the  lover. 
He  wants  to  love  God,  he  wants  all  sorts  of  rituals,  flowers,  and  in- 
cense, beautiful  buildings,  forms  and  all  these  thing.s.  Do  j’ou 
mean  to  say  they  are  wrong?  One  fact  I will  tell  you.  It  is  better 
for  you  to  remember  in  this  couiitrj-  especially  that  .spiritual  giants 
have  been  only  produced  by  those  sects  which  have  got  a ver}'  rich 
mythology  and  ritual.  All  those  .sects  who  wanted  to  worship  God 
• without  any  form  or  ceremony,  crushed  without  mere}’  every- 


thing  th.nt  was  beautiful  and  sublime.  Their  religion  becomes  a 
fanaticism  at  best,  a dry  thing.  The  histor)-  of  the  world  is  a 
standing  witness  to  this  fact.  Therefore  do  not  decrj-  these  rituals 
and  these  mythologies.  Let  people  have  them  ; let  those  who  de- 
sire go  through  them.  Neither  have  that  little  derisive  smile, — 
‘•they  are  fools  ; let  them  have  it.”  Not  so  ; the  greatest  men  I 
have  seen  in  my  life,  the  most  wonderfull)’  developed,  have  all 
come  from  these  rituals.  I do  not  hold  nu-self  worth}'  to  stand  at 
their  feet.  For  uie  to  criticise  than  ! How  do  I know  how  these 
ideas  act  upon  the  human  mind,  what  to  accept  and  what  to  reject  ? 
We  go  on  criticising  everything  in  the  world.  Therefore  let  them 
have  it.  Let  people  have  all  the  mythology  they  want,  all  the 
beautiful  inspirations  they  want,  for  you  must  always  know  that 
these  emotional  natures  do  not  care  for  your  definition  of  the  truth. 
God  to  them  is  something  tangible,  the  onh-  thing  that  is  real ; they 
feel,  hear  and  see  it  and  love  it ; they  do  not  stop  to  anah’ze  it. 
Your  rationalist  seems  to  be  like  that  fool,  who.  when  he  saw  a 
beautiful  statue  wanted  to  break  it  to  pieces  to  see  the  material  it 
was  made  of.  Let  them  have  God.  Bhakti  Yoga  teaches  them  how 
to  love,  how  to  love  without  any  ulterior  motives,  loving  good  for 
good’s  sake,  and  not  for  going  to  heaven,  for  instance,  to  get  a 
child,  or  wealth,  or  anything  else.  It  teaches  them  that  love  itself 
is  the  highest  recompense  of  love.  The  old  doctrine  that  God  him- 
self is  love.  It  teaches  him  to  give  all  sorts  of  tribute  to  God  as  the 
Creator,  the  omnipresent,  the  omnipotent,  almighty  ruler,  the 
Father  or  IMotlier,  the  highest  word  that  can  be  said  of  Him,  the 
highest  idea  that  the  human  mind  can  construe  about  Him  is  that 
He  is  the  God  of  love.  Wherever  there  is  love,  it  is  He.  “Wher- 
ever there  is  any  love  it  is  He,  the  Lord,  present  there.”  \A'here 
the  husband  kisses  the  wife.  He  is  there  in  the  kiss  ; where  mother 
kisses  the  child.  He  is  there  ; friends  clasp  their  hands,  He.  the 


Lord,  is  there  present,  standing  as  the  God  of  love.  When  a 
great  man  wants  to  help  mankind,  He  is  there  giving  it  as  love  to 
mankind.  Wherever  the  heart  expands  He  is  there  manifested. 
This  is  what  the  Bhakti  Yoga  teaches. 

We  lastly  come  to  the  GnanaYogi,  the  philosopher,  the  thinker, 
he  who  wants  to  go  beyond.  He  is  the  man  who  is  not  sati.sfied 
with  the  little  things  of  this  world.  His  idea  is  to  go  beyond  the 
routine  work  of  eating,  drinking  and  so  on,  not  even  the  teachings 
of  thousands  of  books  will  satisfy  him.  Not  even  these  sciences 
will  satisfy  him  ; they  only  bring  this  little  world  at  best  before  him. 
What  ekse?  Not  even  whole  systems,  the  Milky  Way,  the 
whole  universe  will  satisfy  him  ; that  is  only  a drop  in  the  ocean  of 
existence.  His  soul  wants  to  go  beyond  all  that  into  the  ver\'  heart 
of  being,  by  seeing  reality  as  it  is;  by  realizing  it.  being  it,  by  be- 
coming one  with  the  Lhiiver.sal  Being.  That  is  the  philo.sopher,  to 
whom  God  is  not  onl}’  the  Father  or  Mother,  not  only  the  Creator 
of  this  universe,  its  Protector,  its  Guide ; the.se  are  but  little  words 
for  him.  For  him  God  is  the  life  of  his  life,  and  soul  of  his  .soul. 
God  is  His  own  Self.  Nothing  remains  to  him.  All  the  mortal 
parts  have  been  pounded  b}'  the  ways  of  philosophy,  and  brushed 
away.  What  remains  is  God  Himself 

Upon  the  same  tree  there  are  two  birds,  one  on  top,  the  other 
below.  The  one  on  the  top  is  calm  and  .silent,  majestic,  immersed 
in  its  own  glorj';  the  one  below,  on  the  lower  branches,  eating 
sweet  and  bitter  fruits  by  turns,  hopping  from  branch  to  branch 
and  becoming  happ}-  and  miserable  by  turns.  After  a time  the  lower 
bird  ate  an  exceptionall\-bitter  fruit, and  got  disgusted  and  looked  up, 
and  there  was  the  other  bird,  that  wondrous  one  of  golden  plumage. 
He  eats  not,  neither  sweet  nor  bitter.  Neither  is  he  happy  or  miser- 
able, but  calm,  the  self-centred  one.  nothing  beyond  his  self  But 
the  lower  bird  forgot  it.  ami  again  began  to  eat  the  sweet  and  bitter 


fruits  of  tliat  tree.  In  a little  while  another  exceptionalh-  bitter 
fruit  comes;  he  feels  miserable  looks  up  ami  goes  forward,  and  wants 
to  get  nearer  to  the  upper  bird.  Again  he  forgets  and  again  looks  up, 
and  so  he  goes  on.  After  a while  an  exceptionally  bitter  fruit  comes, 
again  he  looks  up.  and  comes  nearer,  and  nearer,  and  nearer, 
the  reflections  of  light  from  the  plumage  of  that  bird  play 
around  his  own  body,  and  he  changes  and  seems  to  melt  awav; 
still  nearer  he  comes,  everything  melts  away,  and  at  last  he  finds 
the  change.  The  lower  bird  was  only  the  sliadow,  the  reflection; 
he,  himself,  was  the  upper  bird  all  the  time.  This  eating  of  fruits 
sweet  and  bitter,  this  lower  little  bird,  weeping  and  happy  by 
turns,  was  a vain  chimera,  a dream:  the  real  bird  was  there  calm 
and  silent  glorious  and  majestic,  beyond  grief,  beyond  sorrow. 
The  upper  bird  is  God.  the  Lord  of  this  universe,  and  the  lower 
bird  is  the  human  soul,  eating  the  sweet  and  bitter  fruits  of  this 
world,  and  then  comes  a blow.  For  a time  he  stops  and  goes 
towards  the  unknown  for  a moment,  and  a flood  of  light  comes. 
He  thinks  this  world  is  vain.  He  goes  a little  further,  yet  again 
the  senses  drag  him  down,  and  he  begins  to  eat  the  sweet  and 
bitter  fruits  of  the  world.  Again  an  exceptionally  hard  blow 
comes.  He  becomes  open  again;  thus  he  approaches  and  ap- 
proaches. and  as  he  gets  nearer  and  nearer  he  finds  his  old 
self  melting  away,  and  that  he  is  God.  When  he  has  come 
near  enough  he  finds  ‘ ‘ He  whom  I have  preached  to  you  as 
the  life  of  this  universe,  who  is  present  in  the  atom,  who  is  present 
in  the  big  suns  and  moons.  He  is  the  basis  of  our  own  life,  the 
background  of  our  soul.  Nay,  thou  art  that.”  That  is  what  this 
Gnana  \oga  teaches.  It  tells  man  he  is  the  essentially  divine.  It 
shows  to  mankind  the  real  unity  of  being,  that  each  one  of  us  is 
the  Lord  God  himself,  manifested  on  earth.  Each  one  of  us.  from 
the  lowest  worm  that  crawls  under  our  feet  to  the  highest  beings 


24 


at  whom  we  look  with  awe,  all  these  are  manifestations  of  the 
same  Lord. 

Then  again  all  these  various  Yogas  have  to  be  carried  out  into 
practice;  theories  will  not  do.  First  we  have  to  hear,  then  we  have 
to  think.  Reason  it  out,  impress  it  in  j-our  mind,  and  lastly,  we 
have  to  meditate  upon  it,  realize  it,  until  it  becomes  our  whole  life. 
No  more  it  remains  as  ideas  or  as  theories,  it  comes  into  our  Self. 
Religion  is  realization,  not  talk,  nor  doctrine,  nor  theories,  how- 
ever beautiful  they  may  be.  It  is  being  and  becoming,  not  hearing 
or  acknowledging;  it  is  not  an  intellectual  assent,  but  the  whole 
nature  becoming  changed  into  it.  That  is  religion.  B\-  intellect- 
ual assent  we  can  come  to  a hundred  sorts  of  foolish  things,  and 
change  next  daj%  but  this  being  and  becoming  is  what  is  religion. 


CLASS  LECTURES. 

22S  West  39th  Street,  New  York  City. 


MONDAYS:  ^'BHAKTI  YOGA,"  - - tt  a.M.  8 P.M. 

WEDNESDAYS:  '•'■GNANA  YOGA,"  - - It  a.M.  8 P.M. 

QUESTION  CLASS,  - - - 8p«- 

SATURDAYS:  ‘‘ AM  YOGA,"-  - - - It  a.M.  8 p m. 


